Guide to Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities

G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
169
N a t i o n a l i s t   M o v e m e n t s
S L O B O D A N   M I L O S E V I C   ( B .   1 9 4 1 )
Slobodan Milosevic is the former president of Serbia as
well as the former president of Yugoslavia. Both his parents
committed suicide during his early years. Milosevic joined the
Communist Party in 1959 and started his career as a banker.
In 1987 he became the political leader of Serbia and was
elected to the presidency by the country’s National Assembly
in 1989.
Milosevic is often described as a nationalist even though
he opposed Serbian nationalism in favor of hard-line Marxism
during his early years in power. A speech he made in Kosovo
in 1989 is commonly regarded, however, as the opening of
a Serbian nationalist campaign. Milosevic is probably best
understood as an opportunist who took advantage of the
wave of nationalism that surged throughout Yugoslavia fol-
lowing the collapse of Communist rule.
Milosevic’s popularity rose after the NATO bombings of
1999, but he fell from power as a result of contesting election
returns in 2001. The Serbian government arrested Milosevic on
April 1, 2001, and handed him over to the UN’s International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which charged
him with genocide and crimes against humanity. The trial was
a landmark event because Milosevic is the first former head of
state in history to stand trial for war crimes before an interna-
tional court.
■ ■ ■

an individual’s overlapping identities, and not necessarily the most determining
or the most prominent. But for nationalists, national identity is the most impor-
tant facet of an individual’s overall identity, and national solidarity is valued more
highly than individual choice. Consequently, liberal nationalists have great difficul-
ty understanding why national minorities are eager to form or maintain political
units in which they are a majority and often tend to favor the status quo.
Most important, the literature on liberal nationalism is almost purely
philosophical and normative, rather than based on empirical observations.
Liberal nationalists often treat the existence of nation-states as a given while
overlooking the fact that nation building is, in many instances, a contingent
and ongoing process. In reality, nationalism often takes on virulent forms and
produces political systems that do not even slightly resemble liberal national-
ists’ idealized vision. The twenty-first century manifestations of nationalist
movements in the Middle East, such as the Palestine-Israeli conflict, and those
in the post-Soviet states, such as the terrorism in Chechnya, have led to much
violence and bloodshed. 
The contemporary political world is divided by many boundaries, with
nations featured prominently among them. For any given country, nationalism
could play a state-building role as a cohesive force bringing together the state
and society. It could also assume a state-destroying role as a 
separatist
force frag-
menting the society. It is impossible to generalize and conclude whether nation-
alist movements play a “positive” or “negative” role. Nevertheless, a common
national identity does facilitate economic development and democracy building.
Historically, nation building in the West often took many decades or even cen-
turies. In the early twenty-first century many non-Western societies, especially
those with colonial legacies, face the triple challenges of simultaneous economic
development,
democratization
, and nation building. The competition for scarce
political and economic resources only makes the creation of a common national
identity a more difficult process, which in turn leads to political instability and
economic stagnation. Although the West has not relented in its attempts to pres-
sure such societies into upholding universal human rights, few signs exist that this
trend is reversing in a fundamental way. It is thus likely nationalist movements
will continue to play a significant role in world politics.
See also:
Colonies and Colonialism; Democracy; Dictatorship; Ghandi, Mahatma;
Hitler, Adolf; Oligarchy; Romania; Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.
Chatterjee, Patha. The Nation and Its Fragments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983.
Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1992.
Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith, eds. Nationalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 1994.
Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and
Citizenship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Miller, David. On Nationality. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Pecora, Vincent P., ed. Nations and Identities: Classic Readings. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2001.
170
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N a t i o n a l i s t   M o v e m e n t s
separatism: a belief that two regions should
be separated politically
democratization: a process by which the
powers of government are moved to the
people of a region or to their elected repre-
sentatives
■ ■ ■  

Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories
of Nations and Nationalism. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press,
2001.
Tamir, Yael. Liberal Nationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1993.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
Ͻhttp://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htmlϾ 
Cheng Chen
Naturalization
Naturalization is the process by which a citizen of one nation obtains citizen-
ship in another country. In the early twenty-first century, the naturalization
process was entirely within the control of the various nation-states comprising
the international system. Each state determined for itself the requirements it
would utilize to permit foreigners to join its citizenry. Consequently, there was
considerable variation from country to country.
Under this system, each state must first determine the number of immi-
grants it will permit to enter its land, for each immigrant is a potential citizen. The
laws establishing immigration quotas are based on a prior determination of
the national interest, and that policy can change over time or with different polit-
ical leaders. For example, throughout the nineteenth century the United States
placed virtually no restrictions on immigration from Europe because the
American leadership wanted to populate the country with people from those
lands. Simultaneously, United States’s policy excluded Asians (except for contract
laborers) because Americans wanted to create a European-oriented society.
Because the United States is no longer an underpopulated country, American
policy in the early 2000s imposed a numerical quota on yearly immigration, and
within that quota priority was given to those individuals who possessed skills most
useful to the American economy and to those who sought to be reunited with
their families. Given these basic objectives, U.S. immigration policy no longer had
a geographic emphasis; it was essentially available to anyone who met the stated
criteria. Other countries maintain an open-door (unlimited) immigration policy
for those individuals they wish to attract; that is how, for example, Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania encourage the return of people who can trace their ancestry to
those countries.
Naturalization occurs within the context of a country’s immigration policy.
Those nations that conceive of citizenship in ethnic terms have a virtually automatic
naturalization process for immigrants who share their common group identity.
Thus, countries such as Germany, Israel, and the Baltic States bestow citizenship on
individuals who are perceived as returning to their native land. Nations that have
a territorial conception of citizenship bestow citizenship on those immigrants who
can demonstrate allegiance to their new homeland and are likely to make a posi-
tive contribution to its welfare. These characteristics are usually shown by residence
in the country for a period of time, knowledge of the nation’s basic institutions and
practices, and a personal history devoid of criminal activities. In the United States,
for example, an individual must live in the country for five years, demonstrate an
understanding of the constitution and the principles of American government,
and show the absence of a criminal record.
Because naturalization entails the bestowal of citizenship on those who sat-
isfy specified criteria, controversy can arise about either the meaning of those
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
171
N a t u r a l i z a t i o n

criteria or whether a particular individual has truly satisfied them. In Israel, for
example, the perennial issue of “who is a Jew” revolves around different under-
standings of that ethnic and religious grouping. In the United States, the
government periodically seeks to expatriate (i.e., denaturalize) individuals who
are believed to have lied about their pasts.
172
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N a t u r a l i z a t i o n
CITIZENSHIP DAY ON ELLIS ISLAND.
Storied Ellis Island in New York hosts 102 new citizens
from 44 countries at a naturalization ceremony on Citizenship Day, September 17,
2004. The event began in 1952 to mark the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution.
(SOURCE: © SETH WENIG/REUTERS/CORBIS)

Despite variations among countries, naturalization processes always have
the same objective: Each nation seeks to have a citizenry with shared attach-
ments and common loyalties.
See also: 
Citizenship; Immigration and Immigrants.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Aleinkopf, Thomas. Between Principles and Politics: The Direction of U.S. Citizenship
Policy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1998.
DeSipio, Louis, and Rodolfo De la Garza. Making Americans, Remaking America:
Immigration and Immigrant Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998.
Martin Edelman
Nauru
Located 4,023 kilometers (2,500 miles) southwest of Hawaii, the island of
Nauru has an area of 21 square kilometers (8.11 square miles)—about six times
the size of New York’s Central Park. In 2004 the population was estimated to be
12,809. At one time it was perhaps the world’s richest nation on a per capita
basis. In the mid-1970s, Nauru’s per capita income was about $50,000 per per-
son; however, in 2001, it was estimated at about one-tenth that amount, or
$5,000—about the same as that of Macedonia, Peru, Lebanon, and China.
Nauru’s great wealth came from mining the huge phosphate deposits that
covered the center of the island, and the decline in its wealth came from the
depletion of these deposits, the apparent failure of the investment strategy
Nauru developed to compensate for the inevitable exhaustion of the phosphate
deposits, and the inability of the country to develop effective alternative
economic ventures. Ninety years of phosphate mining also have made a waste-
land of Nauru’s central plateau. Growing economic difficulties led to efforts to
develop an unregulated 
offshore banking
industry, which has been plagued by
apparent money laundering activities by allegedly criminal sources.
Nauru became an independent nation on January 31, 1968 and has been a full
member of the Commonwealth of Nations and of the United Nations since 1999.
Nauru’s constitution, adopted January 29, 1968, establishes a presidential form of
government with an eighteen-member unicameral parliament elected by popular
vote for 3-year terms. The first president of Nauru was Hammer DeRoburt
(1923–1992), the former head chief of Nauru and “father of the Nauruan nation,”
who served until 1976, was reelected in 1978, and served, with two brief interrup-
tions, until 1989. DeRoburt was defeated in 1976 by Bernard Dowiyogo
(1946–2003), who subsequently served as president on six additional occasions
before his death. In August 2003 Rene Harris (b. 1948) became president.
The president serves as both chief of state and chief of government and is
elected by parliament for a 3-year term. The president appoints a cabinet from
the members of parliament. The president and the cabinet can be removed
from office by a vote of no-confidence in the parliament. This has happened
frequently in Nauru’s history as an independent 
republic
: The country has had
changes in the presidency on twenty-four occasions since its independence.
Often, votes of no-confidence and changes of president have resulted from
disputes between an 
incumbent
president and parliament over budgetary mat-
ters and policies to deal with Nauru’s “phosphateless” future.
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
173
N a u r u
offshore banking: banking that takes place in
a foreign country, usually to escape domestic
taxation
■ ■ ■  
republic: a form of democratic government
in which decisions are made by elected
representatives of the people
incumbent: one who currently holds a
political office, or, holding a political office

Nauru’s judicial system consists of a Supreme Court (in 2001,
a single sitting justice), a district court, and a family court. The
constitution allows appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to
the High Court (the top court) of Australia. The judiciary has a
reputation for independence.
Freedom House includes Nauru among the world’s “free”
nations, giving the country a top rating for the exercise of dem-
ocratic political rights. Its rating for observance of citizen civil
rights and liberties is somewhat lower due to attempts to
interfere with press efforts to investigate purported money
laundering schemes by government officials.
See also: 
Australia.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Banks, Arthur S., and William Overstreet. “Nauru.” In Political
Handbook of the World 1979. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
Freedom House. “Nauru.” Freedom in the World 2003. New York:
Freedom House, 2003. 
Ͻhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/research/
freeworld/2003/ countryratings/nauru.htm
Ͼ.
Mellor, William. “Nauru Goes from Riches to Rags.” International
Herald-Tribune Online, June 3, 2004. 
Ͻhttp://www.iht.com/arti-
cles/ 522945.html
Ͼ.
“Nauru.”  CIA World Factbook. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence
Agency, 2004. 
Ͻhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
geos/nr. html#Geo
Ͼ.
Schimmel, B. “Nauru.” Rulers.
Ͻhttp://www.rulers.org/ruln1.htmlϾ.
C. Neal Tate
Nepal
Nepal is a small and mountainous kingdom wedged between the two great
Asian powers of India and China, and this geographical location has been a deter-
mining factor in shaping Nepal’s history and politics. Nepal is the only Hindu king-
dom in the world, yet a significant number of Nepali living in the Hills region trace
their origins to Tibet and adjacent regions that are a part of China. Nepal’s ethnic,
linguistic, and regional heterogeneity has generated a great deal of political and
social strife in modern times. Remote Nepal escaped colonial exploitation but
missed out on the modernizing influences that integration into larger colonial
markets brings.
Landlocked Nepal cannot ignore the interests of its larger neighboring
states and must depend on their good will for trade and transit connections to
the outside world. With a population of 27 million in 2004, Nepal is one of the
poorest countries in the world. Its estimated per capita income of $1,400 in
2003 tied it with Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, and Uganda for the rank of 191
among the 231 nations and territories listed in the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency’s 2003 World Factbook. Fifty percent of the adult population is illiterate,
and 80 percent of the illiterates are rural women.
174
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N e p a l
Meneng Point
Buada
Lagoon
Anibare
Bay
PACIFIC  OCEAN
Yaren
Yangor
Anna
Anibare
Ijuw
Anabar
W
S
N
E
NAURU
2 Miles
0
0
2 Kilometers
1
1
(MAP BY MARYLAND CARTOGRAPHICS/ THE GALE GROUP)

H I S T O R I C A L   B A C K G R O U N D
Nepal achieved statehood—defined boundaries and a single legal-political
order—well before India and Pakistan became modern nation-states. Nepal was
unified in the mid-eighteenth century. In the nineteenth century, Prithvi
Narayan Shah (1829–1881) expanded Nepal’s boundaries toward the west,
bringing Nepal directly into conflict with the British 
imperial
interest. These
conflicts ended in treaties that defined Nepal’s modern boundaries and forced
it to accept the status as a buffer state between British India and China. In 1846
the ruling Shahs were displaced by the powerful Rana family. Jung Bahadur Rana
(1817–1877) proclaimed himself the prime minister, which became a hereditary
position after that. The Rana family ruled for over a century, although the Shahs
remained the nominal monarchs.
The political climate changed in 1947. India had become independent and
King Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah Dev (1906–1955) of Nepal, who had sympathiz-
ers among Indian leaders, persuaded India’s new prime minister, Jawaharlal
Nehru (1889–1964) in 1950 to depose the Ranas and restore Nepal to a monarchy.
In turn, King Tribhuvan promised that Nepal would be a democracy. The
coup
against the Ranas was successful, and in 1950 Nepal was restored to the Shahs. In
1955 King Tribhuvan passed away and was succeeded by his son, Mahendra Bir
Bikram Shah Dev (1920–1972). King Mahendra yielded to popular pressure and
promised to install a constitutional democracy. The first elections, held in 1959,
saw the Nepal Congress, a powerful political movement and a political party
under the leadership of G. P. Koirala (b. 1925), emerge triumphant.
This first experiment with democracy rapidly ended in 1960, when King
Mahendra dissolved the parliament, placed the entire cabinet under arrest, and
resumed total control. He then introduced a 
decentralized
democratic system
based on a pyramid of layered councils ( panchayats) beginning at the village
and ending at the national level. Political parties remained banned. The villages
nominated members for the district panchayats, which in turn elected members
to the Rashtriya Panchayat (National Council). The party-less panchayats
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
175
N e p a l
imperialism: extension of the control of
one nation over another, especially through
territorial, economic, and political expansion
■ ■ ■  
coup: a quick seizure of power or a sudden
attack
decentralize: to move power from a central
authority to multiple periphery government
branches or agencies
H
I
M
A
L
A
Y
A
S
M A H
A B H A
R A T
R A N G E
M
A H
A B
H A
R A
T
R A N
G E
Namsê
Pass
Lipu Lekh
Pass
Rabga
Pass
Dhaulagiri
26,810 ft.
8172 m.
Mt. Kanchenjunga
28,210 ft.
8598 m.
Mt. Everest
29, 028 ft.
8848 m.
Annapurna
26,504 ft.
8078 m.
Set
i
Su
n
Kosi
A
ru
n
K
a
rn
a
li
¯
Kali
¯
G
an
d
ak
Pum Qu
Paikü
Co
Mapam
Yumco
S
a
rd
a
Sar
da
Simikot
Tulsipur
Bahraich
Jomsom
Mahendranagar
Birendranagar
Mugu
Gorkha
Kunchha
Bharatpur
Bhaktapur
Congdü
Zongba
Janakpur
Kishanganj
Jaynagar
Siddharthanagar
Butawal
Bettiah
Nepalganj
¯
Biratnagar
¯
Kathmandu
¯
¯
Dandeldhura¯
Jumla¯
Pokhara¯
Dharan
¯
Ilam
¯
Dhankuta
¯
Birganj
Mustang
¯
Patan
¯ ¸
C H I N A
I N D I A
W
S
N
E
Nepal
NEPAL
150 Miles
0
0
150 Kilometers
50
100
50
100
(MAP BY MARYLAND CARTOGRAPHICS/ THE GALE GROUP)

system lasted for the next thirty years until it was dismantled under the rising tide
of popular demand for political democracy in the 1990s.
S E C O N D   E X P E R I M E N T   W I T H   D E M O C R A C Y   I N   N E PA L
In April 1990, the king capitulated and dissolved the panchayat system,
permitting the formation of an interim government headed by Krishna Prasad
Bhattarai (b. 1924) as the prime minister. The new government drafted and
promulgated
a constitution in November 1990, which enshrined fundamental
human rights and established Nepal as a parliamentary democracy under a
constitutional monarch. According to the 1990 constitution, Nepal has a 
bicam-
eral
legislature, independent judiciary, and a ban on political parties based on
an exclusively ethnic or religious platform. In the May 1991 election held under
the new constitution, the Nepal Congress won the popular vote and formed
the government. The largest opposition group, the Communist Party of Nepal/
United Marxist Leninist Party, won 69 seats. For the next decade, election victo-
ries alternated between two broad 
coalitions
, one led by the Nepal Congress and
the other by the United Marxist Leninist Party.
The revolution in the 1990s was a turning point in Nepal’s political history.
However, Nepal’s passage to democracy has been anything but smooth. Elections
have been held between 1991 and 2000, but no government completed its full
term in office. By the time Koirala, the head of Nepal Congress Party, became the
prime minister in 2000, Nepal had changed governments nine times.
Political instability led to popular disillusionment, and radical Maoists
launched an 
insurgency
in mid-1990s that rapidly gained momentum. Tragic
events in 2001 dealt a further blow to what little remained of the processes cre-
ated under the constitution of 1991. On June 1, 2001, Crown Prince Dipendra,
reportedly in a drunken rage, killed ten members of the royal family, including
his father King Birendra and his mother Queen Aishwariya, and then fatally shot
himself. Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev ( b. 1947), brother to the murdered
monarch, was crowned king, but the relationship between the monarchy and
political parties had been fundamentally altered.
Since 2001, King Gyanendra has usurped more and more power while
the political parties have remained deadlocked on who should rule and how to
cope with the Maoist insurgency that had by 2004 claimed close to 9,500 lives and
established
de facto
control over vast regions of Nepal. Instead of building civilian
institutions, King Gyanendra sought to 
marginalize
political parties by proposing
direct talks with the rebels. These negotiations had borne no fruit by late 2004.
Since the end of the state of emergency in August 2002, freedom of speech
and freedom of the press, guaranteed under the constitution, have been official-
ly restored, but exercising these freedoms is severely impeded because of antiter-
rorist legislation, as well as intimidation and interference by the parties to the
conflict. The number of civilian deaths has steadily mounted and human rights
violations by both the security forces and the Maoists have become routine. The
Maoists have demanded a new constitution and the dismantling of the liberal
parliamentary system. Thus, in the early twenty-first century, Nepal was paralyzed
by three contending forces: the political parties that want the 1990 constitution
restored and parliament functioning, the king who seeks more power, and the
Maoists who want to abolish both monarchy and liberal democracy and gain
control of the state. The state in Nepal was near collapse and life for ordinary
Nepali had become unsafe, violent, and with few good prospects.
See also: 
China; Constitutional Monarchy; India.
176
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N e p a l
insurgency: a rebellion against an existing
authority
de facto: (Latin) actual; in effect but not
officially declared
marginalize: to move to the outer borders,
or to move one to a lower position
promulgation: an official declaration,
especially that a law can start being enforced
bicameral: comprised of two chambers,
usually a legislative body
coalition: an alliance, partnership, or union
of disparate peoples or individuals
■ ■ ■  

B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Brown, Louise T. The Challenge to Democracy in Nepal: A Political History. London:
Routledge, 1996.
Chadda, Maya. Building Democracy in South Asia: India Pakistan and Nepal. Boulder,
CO: Lynn Rienner, 2000.
Chaturvedi, S. K. Indo-Nepal Relations in Linkage Perspective. New Delhi, India: South
Asia Books, 1990.
Dharmdasani, M. D. Nepal, Political Economy of Foreign Aid. New Delhi, India: Shalimar
Publication House, 1994.
Hutt, Michael, ed. Nepal in the Nineties. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Muni, S. D. Maoist Insurgency in Nepal: The Challenges and the Response. New Delhi,
India: Rupa and Co., 2003.
“Nepal.” In CIA World Factbook. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2005.
Ͻhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/np.htmlϾ.
Phadnis, Urmilla. Ethnicity and Nation-building in South Asia. New Delhi, India: Sage, 1989.
Ram, Rahul. Royal Nepal, a Political History. New Delhi, India: South Asia Books, 1996.
Shaha, Rishikesh. Politics in Nepal 1980–1990: Referendum, Stalemate and Triumph
of People’s Power. New Delhi, India: Manohar Publications, 1990.
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. “Nepal.”
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
Ͻhttp://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/
2003/27949.htm
Ͼ.
Maya Chadda
Netherlands, The
The Netherlands is a small country in the middle of Western Europe, bor-
dering Germany, Belgium, and the North Sea. One of its best-known geographic
characteristics is that one-third of the flat country lies below sea level. The Dutch
waterworks are famous throughout the world, which is not surprising if one con-
siders that the Netherlands had already started to impolder (drain) land in the
1600s. Although the Netherlands has only 16 million inhabitants, it is one of the
most densely populated countries in the world. It measures approximately
300 kilometers (185 miles) north to south by 200 kilometers (125 miles) east to
west. The most densely populated area in the midwest of the country, de
Randstad, has approximately 1,000 inhabitants per square kilometers. This area,
revolving around the capital Amsterdam, the political center at The Hague, and
Rotterdam with its seaport at the Rhine delta, is also the hub of economic activity.
In socioeconomic terms the Netherlands can best be described as a social
welfare state
with a high standard of living. In 2002, with a gross domestic prod-
uct (GDP) of approximately U.S.$26,000 per capita, it was one of the fifteen
wealthiest countries in the world. Only 20 percent of the working population of
7 million are employed in production and agriculture. The economy depends
largely on trade and services, which together provide almost half of all jobs. The
remaining 30 percent are employed in public services, health care, and education.
Because of the funding systems for health care and education, about one-third of
the working population is, in effect, directly or indirectly paid by the government.
The post–World War II (since 1945) ideal of state care “from the crib to the grave”
has resulted in an extensive Social Security system, providing unemployment,
sickness, and disability benefits and a state pension.
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
177
N e t h e r l a n d s ,   T h e
welfare state: a political state that assumes
liability for the wellbeing of its people
through government-run social programs
■ ■ ■  

These socioeconomic and geographical circumstances have made the
Netherlands dependent on international trade, and this trade has been facilitated
by its good relations with surrounding countries. It was one of the founding mem-
bers of the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the European
Union (EU), in 1957. Its strong economy has furthermore made the Netherlands
into a “netto-payer,” which means that the (obligatory) amount of money the
Netherlands contributes to the EU exceeds the amount it gets back by way of
subsidies and grants. These factors have resulted in the Netherlands often being
regarded as the biggest of the small countries within the EU.
T H E   P O L I T I C A L   S Y S T E M  
Historically, the Dutch state has been the result of a process of evolu-
tion rather than revolution. The Netherlands became a unified state with a
centralized
government in 1798. After an unstable beginning, in which 
regimes
and constitutions followed each other quickly, and a brief incorporation in the
French Empire, the monarchy was instituted in 1813. However, fear of the unsta-
ble situation in surrounding countries, especially France, soon provided a climate
for change in a more democratic direction. This change came in 1848, when
the constitution was completely revised by a well-known statesman, the liberal
Johan Rudolf Thorbecke (1798–1872). This constitution introduced the concepts
of the sovereignty of parliament and ministerial responsibility for the monarch.
Ministers are responsible for the acts of government. The last pillars of the Dutch
constitutional system, 
proportional representation
and universal 
suffrage
, were
introduced in the early part of the twentieth century, with men receiving the
right to vote in 1917 and women in 1919.
In the early twenty-first century the Netherlands remained a democratic con-
stitutional monarchy in which the power of the monarch was, to a large extent,
ceremonial. From 1890 until 2004 the head of state has been female. Queen
Wilhelmina (1880–1962), who reigned from 1890 until 1948 and was known
as the “mother of the nation,” guided the country through Nazi occupation
(1940–1945) during World War II. Her daughter Queen Juliana (1909–2004), the
monarch between 1948 and 1980, was well known for her kindness and unas-
suming nature, and the reputation of Queen Beatrix ( b. 1938), who ascended the
throne in 1980, is grounded in her competence and professionalism in matters
of state. The heir to the throne as of 2004, Prince Willem Alexander ( b. 1968), will
be the first king in over a century. Traditionally, there has been a high level of sup-
port for the monarchy among the population. Some 85 percent of the popula-
tion favor the Netherlands remaining a monarchy.
After World War II the most prominent prime ministers were Willem Drees
(1886–1988), Ruud Lubbers ( b. 1939), and Wim Kok ( b. 1938). Drees, a member
of the Social Democratic Labour Party, guided the postwar reconstruction of the
Netherlands between 1948 and 1958 and was the force behind the development
of a welfare state with the introduction of state pensions. The Christian
Democrat Lubbers, who served as prime minister from 1982 until 1994, is well
known for his involvement in building Dutch consensus politics, called the
“polder model.” Kok, who held the office between 1994 and 2002, was the first
prime minister of a government not formed by Christian Democrats since the
introduction of universal suffrage in 1917. In 2002 the Christian Democrats
regained control, with Jan Peter Balkenende ( b. 1956) serving as prime minister.
The Netherlands has a multiparty system; between ten and twenty-five polit-
ical parties participate in elections. Elections are usually held every four years,
although it should be noted that only seven out of twenty-four governments
178
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N e t h e r l a n d s ,   T h e
centralize: to move control or power to
a single point of authority
regime: a type of government, or, the
government in power in a region
proportional system: a political system in
which legislative seats or offices are awarded
based on the proportional number of votes
received by a party in an election
suffrage: to vote, or, the right to vote
■ ■ ■  

since World War II have managed to complete their term. Following national elec-
tions, the king appoints an informateur, a person who investigates the possible
makeup of a new government after consulting with the leaders of the parties
elected to parliament. A 
coalition
government (composed of ministers and state
secretaries) will be formed from the candidates advanced by the coalition parties.
No single party has ever had an overall majority in parliament, so a coalition
government is inevitable. Usually, the leader of the main party in parliament is
assigned the task of forming a government and will become prime minister.
The Dutch parliament consists of two chambers. The 150 members of
the Second Chamber of parliament are directly elected; the 75 members of the
First Chamber are indirectly elected by the provincial states, the directly elected
regional level of government. The Second Chamber essentially controls the
government. It has a number of powers, among them the rights to submit writ-
ten questions to ministers, to summon ministers to the chamber to answer
questions, and to form investigative committees. Both chambers play a role in
the legislative process: The Second Chamber, involved in the political process
that leads to the drafting of laws, has the right to amend proposed legislation.
The First Chamber has veto power over all proposed legislation, but it does not
have the authority to amend legislation. Rather, its function is to review legisla-
tion, and for this reason it is sometimes referred to as the “chamber of review.” 
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
179
N e t h e r l a n d s ,   T h e
coalition: an alliance, partnership, or union
of disparate peoples or individuals 
■ ■ ■  
lo
ck
s
Da
m
wi
th
W
e s
t
F r i
s i a n
I s l a n d
s
Texel
 Vlieland
Terschelling
Ameland
Schiermonnikoog
Northeast
Polder
Flevoland
Polder
E a
s t
F r i s
i a n
I s l a n d
s
N o r t h
S e a
W
ad
de
nz
ee
IJsselmeer
Noordzee-
kanaal
Oosterschelde
Westerschelde
M
aa
s
Zu
id
-W
ill
em
sk
a
n
a
a
l
Wilh
elm
in
ak
a naal
Waal
Lek
IJ
ss
el
P
ri
n
ce
ss
M
ar
gri
et
Can
al
Maas
Nederri jn
R
h
ein
Sc
he
ld
e
A
m
st
er
d
am
-R
ijn
ka
na
al
Middelburg
Breda
Delft
Tilburg
Dordrecht
Leiden
Haarlem
Apeldoorn
Nijmegen
Arnhem
Enschede
Winterswijk
Zwolle
Emmen
Hoogereen
Emlichheim
Meppen
Roalte
Emden
Rheine
Borken
Assen
Heerenveen
Groningen
Leeuwarden
Lelystad
Zaanstad
Maastricht
's-Hertogenbosch
Den Helder
Alkmaar
Amersfoort
Heerlen
Hengelo
Veendam
The Hague
Rotterdam
Utrecht
Antwerp
Aachen
Mönchengladbach
Düsseldorf
Brussels
Gent
Liege
Eindhoven
Amsterdam
G E R M A N Y
B E L G I U M
FRANCE
W
S
N
E
Netherlands
THE NETHERLANDS
50 Miles
0
0
50 Kilometers
25
25
(MAP BY MARYLAND CARTOGRAPHICS/ THE GALE GROUP)

P O L I T I C A L   C U LT U R E
The Netherlands is a relatively calm society. It is one of the oldest and
most stable modern nation-states. When change has occurred, it generally
transpired fifty years later than elsewhere. Dutch society has become some-
what more dynamic in the early twenty-first century, but systemic change is
still highly incremental. Sessions of the Second Chamber of parliament are
usually orderly and without significant emotion. For decades the Christian
Democrats dominated Dutch politics. With the exception of the period of
occupation (1940–1945) during World War II, they have been represented in
every government since 1917. Sometimes they have formed coalitions with
the Social Democrats, sometimes with the Conservative Liberals. In 1994 this
spirit of cooperation changed. Liberals ( both Conservative and Progressive
groups) formed a coalition with the Social Democrats and forced the Christian
Democrats into the opposition. This melding of Liberal “blue” factions with
Social Democratic “red” ones gave rise to the so-called purple coalition that
existed from 1994 to 2002.
The high degree of stability and slow pace of change have had a significant
impact on society as a whole. Dutch society is a consensus society. Many insti-
tutions have been largely transformed since the successful appeasement of
tensions between Protestantism and Catholicism. Until the 1960s society was
organized along religious lines. These religious groups, as well as the socialist
movement, formed their own political, economic, cultural, educational, and
recreational associations such as political parties, trade unions, newspapers,
schools, children’s homes, hospitals, broadcasting organizations, and sports
clubs. And, although religion does not continue to play an all-important role
in society in the early twenty-first century, there still are, for instance,
Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic schools, which are entirely funded
by the state. This, of course, enhanced the complexity and costs of the wel-
fare system.
Dutch culture bridges innumerable contradictions. Many mechanisms exist
for diffusing conflict and drawing extremes into the mainstream. In the words of
the historian Han Van der Horst, Dutch society is “non-exclusivist”; all points of
view will be considered and included, albeit under the condition that parties to
the dialogue remain reasonable and willing to participate in the open discussions
that lead to rational consensus. Such a culture of consensus has uncontested
status in society. In Dutch culture, strong criticism and opinions are frequently
kept hidden.
This consensus society with its polder model (or Dutch model) incorporates
not only the consensus between political parties and religions, but also that
between employers and trade unions. According to this model, the discussion
among differing factions will continue for as long as it takes to reach an agree-
ment, and no final decision will be made until a general consensus develops.
It also implies gedogen, which means to openly allow, as a policy, what is legally
prohibited. For example, the use of recreational drugs is prohibited, but their
sale is tolerated. 
In the early twenty-first century the political climate dramatically changed. In
response to growing public discontent about the nation’s consensus culture and
the growth of immigrant groups, including their attempts at integration, Pim
Fortuyn (1948–2002) formed a new political party in 2001. “New politics” and
immigrants became his major issues in the 2002 elections. According to the
pre-election polls, his party was poised to become the largest national party,
expected to capture over 25 percent of the vote. The political establishment
180
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N e t h e r l a n d s ,   T h e

and most of the media reacted very strongly, characterizing the party, List Pim
Fortuyn, as racist, or at the very least as a one-issue party. Ten days before
the elections Fortuyn was murdered. Subsequently, the List Pim Fortuyn won
twenty-six seats in parliament and forged a coalition with Christian Democrats
and Liberals. The party fell apart quickly, however, and the coalition collapsed
after three months. In the next elections, the List Pim Fortuyn garnered only 8 of
the 150 seats in parliament. 
L E G A L   C U LT U R E
Legal culture is no exception to the Dutch model. The dissenting opinions
of judges are never published, and judges are obliged to maintain the secrecy
of their deliberations. In order to reach a common decision (or verdict),
judges must negotiate and compromise. Moreover, the judiciary has a limited
political role in society. Although the legal system is based on a written consti-
tution, there is no court that has the power to strike down legislation as
unconstitutional. Article 120 of the constitution disallows the 
judicial review
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
181
N e t h e r l a n d s ,   T h e
IN THE CENTER OF THE SQUARE OF AMSTERDAM, OR DAM SQUARE, SITS THE NATIONAL MONUMENT WITH THE ROYAL PALACE IN THE
BACKGROUND.
Completed in 1665, the Royal Palace (Koninklijk Paleis) originally served as a city hall. While it is regarded as
the official royal home, the royal family resides at The Hague, though state functions are often held at the palace. The National
Monument was erected in 1956 to commemorate those killed during World War II. 
(SOURCE: © RICHARD T. NOWITZ/CORBIS)
judicial review: the ability of the judicial
branch to review and invalidate a law that
contradicts the constitution
■ ■ ■  

of acts of parliament. However, a judge can declare acts of parliament to be at
variance with international treaties.
Judges are not elected and no political associations exist within the judici-
ary. In the Dutch version of the doctrine of the separation of powers, conflict
models are abhorred; in late-twentieth-century publications on the subject
one finds titles such as “Co-operating Powers,” “Constitutional Partners,” and
“Balancing Powers.” Decision making by the judiciary is informal, pragmatic,
and consensus-oriented. For instance, a judge will feel bound by 
precedents
, but
when an earlier decision has not resulted in the desired solution or has been
heavily critiqued in legal periodicals, he or she will frankly acknowledge it and
reconsider the legal issues involved. The objective is reaching a fair decision,
without
polarization
or the introduction of 
extrajudicial
motives. Sometimes,
judges tend toward activism, thereby strectching the limits of the separation
of powers, for example, when trying to counterbalance parliamentary decisions.
Arguments in such cases are never 
partisan
, however, and the court is largely
nonactivist in politically sensitive cases.
Citizens’ legal rights vis-à-vis the national and local government are fairly
strong. The General Administrative Law Act provides for appeals against most
government decisions except the most general rules. Citizens may also seek
compensation for (nongeneral) acts of government under 
tort
law. Large proj-
ects that require the cooperation of the authorities in the form of permits, such
as industrial development, home construction, and road-building projects, are
usually accompanied by a large number of court cases directed against govern-
ment decisions.
The Netherlands has recognized the legal authority of the European Court of
Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The rulings of the European
Court of Justice are directly binding and individuals have the right to individually
bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights. Even more important
is the direct applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms; citizens can invoke the Convention before a national
judge. In combination with the constitutional provision forbidding judicial review
of acts of parliament, this has resulted in the European Convention becoming
the de facto bill of rights in many court cases.
E A R LY   T W E N T Y- F I R S T- C E N T U R Y   D E V E L O P M E N T S
The popular image of the Netherlands is that of a quiet, stable, consensus-
oriented welfare state. Certain early twenty-first century developments have indi-
cated a shift in character, albeit a small one. Three factors illustrate this shift. First,
the circumstances surrounding the 2002 elections have hardened the political
climate, both in parliament and outside it. In particular, views on immigrants and
criminals have become harsher across the entire political spectrum, including
among Social Democrats and smaller left-wing parties. Traditionally, these groups
were protectors of the rights of immigrants and criminals; in the early 2000s they
have instead emphasized the importance of the viewpoints of ordinary citizens
and victims. This change in the political climate, together with the second factor,
an economic 
recession
, has also had its effect on the consensus model. Whereas
the consensus model was accepted as the general way to cope with all kinds
of problems, for example, the country’s recession in the 1980s, in the early
twenty-first century it was often thought to be a problem itself. Employers’ organ-
izations and the government have become less willing to negotiate with unions,
and have called for hard measures rather than talks. Also, many regard the high
level of social security programs and the massive bureaucracy as untenable in the
182
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
N e t h e r l a n d s ,   T h e
recession: a period of negative economic
growth associated with high unemployment
precedent: an established ruling, understand-
ing, or practice of the law
polarize: to separate individuals into
adversarial groups
extrajudicial: outside the legal system;
lacking the legitimating authority of the
government